Last week saw several reports, including in the Washington Post and the Guardian, claiming renewed or invigorated contacts between the Karzai administration and the Taliban. This has been reported on several occasions throughout the US' nine year involvement in the Afghan war, most recently in 2008 and 2009, and is the necessary first step in ending the conflict and bringing stability not just to Afghanistan, but to the region. Unfortunately, the Obama administration has been largely consistent in its dismissal of such efforts over the last two years, keeping constant with the Bush Administration's insistence on a military solution to the conflict. The refusal by the Obama administration to take a more active and leading role in negotiations, by reciting the same mantra as the Bush Administration, of only talking to the Taliban after they have laid down their arms and accepted the Afghan constitution (in essence surrendering)*, continues to obstruct any chances of a successful political resolution to the conflict.
The US with 100,000 troops, plus 50,000 coalition troops and a near equal number of contractors, is obviously the gorilla in the room militarily. However, when you consider the US is spending over $100 billion annually in Afghanistan, a country with a GDP of only $14 billion, the US position must be understood not just for its strength, but for its power brokering and king making abilities due to the sheer and obscene volume of dollars it pumps into Afghanistan. By ignoring this reality, the United States is serving no purpose but to prolong the conflict as it stands on the sidelines with its arms crossed, arguing, as it has for years, that talks are, at best, exaggerated and, at worst, defeatist.
The US' rhetoric towards a political solution to the war in Afghanistan is not backed up by its actions. While American generals, diplomats and politicians state the war must end with a settlement achieved through political means, the actuality is that very little US diplomatic efforts have occurred, while tens of thousands of troops have been added to the war effort. Without the US clearly demonstrating any honest interest in talks with the Taliban the chances of a negotiated settlement are slim.
The US must lead negotiations. As long as the US props up and enrichens the Karzai regime, there will not be a sincere willingness on the part of the Karzai government to truly work towards a reasonable settlement with its opposition. If the US is not in the room during negotiations and is instead increasing its troop and financial commitment to the Karzai government, the population that supports the insurgency will continue to view the American and western presence as a self-serving occupation with no interest in leaving. With regards to the notion that the enemy will wait us out if we indicate a desire to negotiate, the Guardian article referenced above, as well as this report from this past spring, indicate the reverse is true for elements of the insurgency's leadership. Finally, as long as the United States does not lead regional nations to the negotiation table, by acting as a broker and administrator, Afghanistan's neighbors will continue to act towards their own self interest to the point of sabotaging talks; as Pakistan did last year when it arrested Mullah Omar's number two man who was then beginning talks with the Karzai government.
The US is the gorilla in the room militarily, financially and politically. Statements that the Afghans must ultimately resolve their differences on their own have a considerable degree of truth to them, but until the US owns up to its position and responsibilities in Afghanistan, and leads efforts towards reconciliation the reality will remain that the current count of thousands dead and wounded and hundreds of billions of dollars spent will be an annual cost to the US with little, if no, benefit to Americans or Afghans.
*The Afghanistan Study Group believes denunciation of al-Qaeda and other trans-national terror groups to be a requirement for talks.
Follow Matthew Hoh on Twitter: www.twitter.com/matthewhoh
Yet, in order to fight the war in Afghanistan, we are exporting it to Pakistan where our drone strikes and cross-border raids are enraging the population, and not just the Pashtuns -- if the popularity of the US in Pakistan is in the single digits, there must be an awful lot of Punjabis who hate us as much as the Pashtuns presumably do.
So in order to protect Pakistan, we fight in Afghanistan. But in order to "win" in Afghanistan, we fight in Pakistan and thereby increase instability there and make the likelihood of extremist takeover in Pakistan more likely, not less.
This is utterly schizophrenic.
Please read our report located at our website: www.afghanistanstudygroup.org.
You will see that the Afghanistan Study Group clearly addresses your concerns regarding political reconciliation, including reaching a negotiated settlement that does not create a vacuum or civil war. You will also see clearly on the first page of our website that we do not advocate abandoning Afghanistan; our recommendation is for a responsible drawdown coupled with a political process that stabilizes Afghanistan. You will additionally find that we have an entire section devoted to regional diplomacy that includes the nations you list below.
I have spoken and written previously in favor of a new loya jirga including here from last January: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703585704574650604207000392.html
We have members of the Afghanistan Study Group who support the idea of a return of the monarchy, particularly the members of New World Strategies, an Afghan-American think tank that has endorsed our report. Ultimately, however, it will be up to the Afghans to determine their form of government. The US must support that process, to include expanding inclusion in the government to those now excluded, but not dictate the outcome.
With regards to your comments on lack of Afghan input, that is untrue. We had many contributors, both Afghans and Afghan-Americans, who have endorsed the report, as you will see in the signatories section of our website.
Finally, the report is focused on US policy in Afghanistan and must be viewed from that perspective.
Matthew Hoh
http://www.afghanistanstudygroup.org/
The only difference I can see between yours and mine is the forward slash at the end.
I would like to focus today on three issues. First, need for multiple pipeline routes for Central Asian oil and gas resources. Second, the need for U.S. support for international and regional efforts to achieve balanced and lasting political settlements to conflicts in the region, including Afghanistan. Third, the need for structured assistance to encourage economic reforms and development of appropriate investment climates in the region. In this regard, we specifically support repeal or removal of section 907 of the Freedom Support Act.
Mr. Chairman, the Caspian region contains tremendous untapped hydrocarbon reserves. Just to give an idea of the scale, proven natural gas reserves equal more than 236 trillion cubic feet. The region's total oil reserves may well reach more than 60 billion barrels of oil. Some estimates are as high as 200 billion barrels. In 1995, the region was producing only 870,000 barrels per day. By 2010, western companies could increase production to about 4.5 million barrels a day, an increase of more than 500 percent in only 15 years.
(Karzai already agreement with UNOCAL.)